Appeal No. 1996-2163
Application 08/106,541
claims 22, 30 and 32, the examiner relies upon Ishii in view of Kobayashi; as to claims 23
and 31, the examiner relies upon Ishii in view of Pfister or Leon; and as to claim 24, the
examiner relies upon Ishii in view of Suchy. Claims 21, 28 and 29 stand rejected under 35
USC § 103 as being obvious over Senne in view of Novak; as to claim 22, the examiner
relies upon Senne in view of Novak, further in view of Kobayashi; as to claim 24, the
examiner relies upon Senne in view of Suchy; and finally, as to claims 30 and 32, the
examiner relies upon Senne in view of Novak and Kobayashi.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellant and the examiner, we make
reference to the appellant’s Brief filed on June 16, 1995, as well as appellant’s Reply Brief
of October 19, 1995. Subsequent to the Remand to the Examiner on March 19, 1999, we
have also considered the Supplemental Examiner’s Answer of November 1, 1999 as well
as appellant’s additional Reply Brief of December 3, 1999.
OPINION
At the outset, we make note that the present application is a continuation-in-part of
appellant’s original application. This continuation-in-part application contains significantly
more figures and text in the written description as compared with its parent application,
while presenting the current claims on appeal. The filing date of this application is August
16, 1993.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007